I've put together a PowerPoint of some intaglio prints by a variety of artists who are recognized for their images and their techniques. Just click on INTAGLIO to see the variety of impressions.
See you in the morning.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
INTAGLIO
We'll start working on metal tomorrow, creating images that print from below the surface, hence the word intaglio, Italian for engrave, carve, or cut. It covers a lot of different processes which we'll explore on 8" x 10" zinc plates. Your image can be anything you want to explore except goofy cliche-type images. Your image will be etched into metal, so make it matter. If you're desperate for something to explore through the processes, you can never go wrong with a self portrait.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I was curious about some of the images in the presentation. The color etching really got my attention. I started looking around for more information and found this reference. It's a pretty good concise list with example artists. I also stumbled on an artist, Linda Adato, with some really nice color etching. I wonder if I can get grant money for a press?
That is a pretty good list. The color etching by Art Werger are meticulously inked by hand a la poupee, and he also uses multiple plates. check our his work at artwerger.com (I think that's it). Linda Adato's prints are nicely executed, but the imagery gets a little old since her treatment of the process gets very predictable. They could easily be tight renderings of buildings and cityscapes.
Concerning Linda Adato... correct me if I am wrong, but I can see the possibility of a series of editions that are perhaps tight renderings, but experiments in color and value through color - maybe even negative. Is tightly rendered something considered cliche in contemporary printmaking or is it predictable to your eye having seen pretty much everything? That's a curious question. If it is new to me as a student with a still fairly naive knowledge of contemporary anything, how do I approach a print critically? I normally fall back on a simple aesthetic as I did here. They looked like nice compositions. What are some nice qualities that you look for personally, as an experienced artist and instructor, in a print, a color etching for example? Maybe we can talk you into giving some pointers on a tour of the memorial exhibition? What is old-hat and what is fresh to Professor Brian?
That was pretty long-winded. Maybe I should just ask what you mean by "nicely executed, but the imagery gets a little old since her treatment of the process gets very predictable." I am not sure what you are saying.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Adato was a beginning student in my class learning how to do line etch, aquatint, and soft ground, and produced any one of the prints she has on her site, I'd be pretty happy with the knowledge gained and how competently she handled it. However, Adato has been doing prints long enough as evidenced by her portfolio and bio, that you'd think she would have branched out a little. One print she did called "looking back" starts to explore some interesting surfaces and textures, but then she doesn't take that any further. She's obviously selling them somewhere since her editions are large (50). If you look at Art Werger's cityscapes and compare them to Adato's, there's clearly a difference in conception, process, and execution. Werger is in bunches of very strong and reputable collections, and Adato isn't. I think she is pandering to popular taste. I'll bring in anther portfolio to share that will give a sense of what I respond to personally, but that's not necessarily what I would respond to as "Professor Jones". We can also tour the Memorial Portfolio. Thanks for the question.
That was a great explanation. I guess that I just responded to the images. I didn't really consider the context. It's hard to put things in perspective when you are new to a medium or process.
Focus on learning the process before you start thinking about color. There are more important fish to fry right now. When working with multiple plates or trying to edition a la poupee you magnify the difficulty tremendously.
Its hard to critique an artists work without seeing it in person or allowing them to explain it. The work you create should not be a response to what you think your professor, the contemporary art community, bla bla bla... is looking for. Don't worry so much about creating a nice print, worry about learning the process and creating a piece of art that says what YOU want it to say and is in response to YOUR thoughts. If you focus on the later... then it will be a nice print.
Do more reading about art and less looking at images. it helps...
I think it is a matter of learning styles to some degree. I am a very visual learner. I can recognize that other students learn better through hands-on trial and error. If I see an image and a process, I can imagine applying it to my art. I even learn better through demonstration where some people might need it in writing. Some students do better in group settings where I do better exploring on my own. Most artist statements mean little to me. If I respond well to the imagery, then I will give it a read. That's just me. I can respect Pollock and his process and his art and it's impact, but I don't respect him any more than I do one of our BFA's and I personally think his art and imagery crap. I want my work to be aesthetic and good art. I want to reach people and have an impact "Look at what I have to say..." not just make my artist soul warm and fuzzy. If that means my work will end up being extremely literal and in-your-face then so be it. But, for now I will explore every avenue.
Shawn, you "think his (Pollock's) art and imagery crap"!?! Why? Have you taken the contemporary art history class yet? I'd be interested in your opinion after having a more thorough introduction. Have you seen the film 'Pollock'?
Post a Comment